Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 12:10 AM
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: lvcitizenalert@earthlink.net
To: bananas , doewatch , downwinders , Nevadanetwork , nukenet , nuke-waste
Subject: CA’s comments on the SDEIS
I realize these are late, but we have til midnight tonight to get them in. So….. if anyone wants to copy part or all of them and send them in for yourself or your org., please feel free. Thank you all for your commitment and hard work. You can fax them to Jane Summerson
1-800-967-0739. Or submit them via internet at http://ymp.gov
Brightest Blessings,
Kalynda
“A Voice For The Land And People Of Nevada”
Citizen Alert’s general comments on the
Supplement Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS)
for a high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain
Prepared by John E. Hadder and Kalynda Tilges
July 6, 2001
Intent of the SDEIS
To Citizen Alert it appears as though the SDEIS is an attempt to facilitate an unrealistic timeline on the Yucca Mountain Project by
avoiding a rewrite of the DEIS. Clearly, the department of Energy (DOE) has made changes to the repository design, which has “evolved”
sufficiently to be considered substantive requiring a re-evaluation of the environmental impacts. However, the SDEIS continually refers to
the Yucca Mountain Science and Engineering Report (YMSER) for details of the design changes. Most of these details should be readily
available in the supplement to fully realize the impacts of new design; instead, one needs to read significant portions of the YMSER.
Therefore, any quantitative and to some extent qualitative comment on the new design is effectively a comment on the YMSER that few
have time to read in the allotted 55 days available for public comment.
The SDEIS doesn’t serve well as a stand alone document, and it is our opinion that it was never intended to serve in that capacity.
Citizen Alert sees the SDEIS as cheating the public from an opportunity to comment in a complete and proper way on the new design
concept.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Yucca Mt. Repository
must show a “Proposed Action”, (in this case, “to construct, operate and monitor, and eventually close a geologic repository at Yucca
Mountain for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste”) as well as alternatives. This Supplement is insufficient
because it does not provide specific design alternatives for the Proposed Action. Instead, it describes a range of design features and
operational parameters that could be combined to arrive at two alternative designs – “above boiling drift wall temperature” or “below boiling
waste container surface temperature”. Page 2-20 shows proposed use of an area that hasn’t even been investigated yet.
If the repository design is still changing why are we being asked to review it? These identified features and parameters (see Table 2-1)
are said to “bound” the design so the range of potential impacts could be analyzed. It does not identify specific alternatives for which these
impacts could be compared. There is no reason to accept this “bounding” approach, since the 1999 DEIS made the same claim, and this
Supplement has impacts that are outside THOSE bounds. What will happen with the Final EIS as the design continues to “evolve”?
According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) The DOE must have a final design for the license application. The site
recommendation is more important than the license application, because it is what the President will make his determination on whether or
not to recommend Yucca Mt. to congress. The Final EIS must be as clear as the NRC license application, and must indicate a final design
choice. This Supplement does nothing to achieve that.
Additional design work in this Supplement, as well as assertions by the DOE of safety, etc., are based on the presumption that currently
proposed regulations will be finalized (thereby disregarding hundreds if not thousands of comments to the contrary). The supplemental
DEIS asserts that the proposal is safe by these new, less rigorous guidelines. There can be no Final EIS until all proposed regulations are
finalized, and the DOE can assert that the proposed action can meet them. All of this additional design work is based on the presumption
that the proposed regulations will be adopted. This entire process is premature, the DOE cannot move forward without final, safe, publicly
acceptable guidelines in place.
The entire Total Systems Performance Assessment is undergoing international peer review at this time. It is clear that even the worldwide
scientific community is questioning the validity of the DOE’s methods to characterize the Yucca Mt. site. The Supplement does not
acknowledge any uncertainties now on record regarding repository performance. These include uncertainties of alloy 22, (the metal which is
supposed to keep the waste isolated from the environment), titanium drip shields, (which would not be put in place until closure of the
Repository, up to 300 years from emplacement of the waste) and uncertainties in subsurface performance of these metals. This Supplement
does not acknowledge the orders of magnitude of uncertainty that the DOE waste package peer review,as well as the TSPA peer review is
now questioning. Nor does it take include the comments and suggestions of the International Atomic Energy Agency Review Team (IRT),
An International Peer Review of the Biosphere Modelling Programme of the US Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Site
Characterization Project, April, 2001. The IRT suggested reexamination of assumptions regarding diet dose (s 15), and modeling of dose due
to resuspension (s23), and a re-assessment of treatment of uncertainties in the biosphere (s 24), and much more.
On-site aging facility
An on-site aging facility is suggested that could have a capacity of as much as 40,000 MTHM, which is essentially the existing
commercial SNF inventory. Citizen Alert views this facility as a defacto interim storage site, which facilitates the nuclear utilities objective of
removing the SNF from the reactors sites as soon as possible. Given the published SNF receipt schedule (~ 3,000 MTHM per year) at Yucca
Mountain it is not clear why such a large facility would be needed; would not a capacity of 15,000 – 20,000 be sufficient? Is the DOE
expecting that relatively young SNF will be shipped first; hence, a large capacity is required?
Yucca Mt. is in the third most active earthquake zone in the U.S. In 1992 there was a magnitude 5.6 earthquake in the vicinity of Yucca
Mountain, which did several million dollars of damage to existing DOE surface facilities. In the Supplement, the DOE considers aging
(cooling) up to 4,500 dry storage casks of spent commercial fuel for up to 50 years on 200 acres of cement pad near the North Portal (page
2-8; 3-7; figure 2-4).. Potential impacts of similar or even more severe seismic activity on the aging facility have not been considered for this
facility. Clearly, a seismic event could at the very least damage welded seams, etc. resulting in radioactive releases. If it had to be licensed
separately under NRC rules for “Independent Spent Fuel Storage Facility Installations” (10 CFR Part 72) it would probably fail.
If fuel aging is part of the selected design, why not age the fuel at the reactor sites for 50 years? This would be a modification (realistic) for
the No-Action Alternative in the DEIS. It would reduce transportation hazards, and allow more time for responsible scientific research and
review.
The Waste Handling Building would have a large storage pool, holding 12,000 fuel assemblies, as an inventory for fuel blending. The
“design basis accident” used is the seismic collapse of the Waste Handling Building (page 3-11). The dose stated is less than that
presented in the original DEIS, without this pool in the design. This is because the accident scenario includes damage to all the spent fuel in
dry containers in the building in both cases. The pool is ignored as a risk. However, if the building collapses, the pool will too, because it is
built to the same specifications as the building. Therefore the accident scenario should include the consequence of damaging all the fuel in
the pool as well, as well as water-born contamination.
Cross country transportation
The release of the SDEIS offered the opportunity to address deficiencies in the transportation analysis from the DEIS, yet there is no added
discussion here.
The DEIS never really clarified that very young SNF is likely to be shipped. Appendix A of the DEIS gives SNF characteristics and sites a
typical age of the SNF (25-27 years), but does not explicitly state the details of the transportation profile. However, the SDEIS, in its
discussion of the fuel blending and likely need of a surface aging facility brings to light that young SNF is expected. While the SDEIS states
that there is no change to the transportation scheme as a result of the changes in the design, we feel at Citizen Alert that this is “false
advertising.” If the DOE was aware during the creation of the DEIS that as young as 5 year fuel is likely to be shipped, then why did the
DOE use the typical age figure in its accident and severe accident calculations? To best inform the public the DOE needs to show the worst
case and best case results of any of the analyses including the transportation of the SNF.
Fuel Blending
“Fuel Blending”- the process of mixing fuel assemblies of different temperatures to lower a waste package temperature has never been done
before. To do this safely, the exact history of each fuel assembly must be known. Any mistakes in record keeping could lead to mistakes in
packaging, and more uncertainties in the repository performance. The Supplement fails to talk about any specific plans or mechanics for fuel
blending. The Supplement makes no mention of possible impacts of incorrect record keeping, and unknown waste package temperatures
from blending.
The DOE can’t use water it doesn’t have
The waste water from the fuel pools, and from washing down the transportation casks, would go through an ion exchange, supposedly
trapping all the radionucleides in a filter. The water would then go to evaporation pools, while the filters would be disposed of as low-level
radioactive waste. The Supplement should not assume the repository water supply will come from appropriated water from the State (page
2-19 and 3-6. Water will not be available unless the State Engineer is overturned on appeal. The Supplement should look at alternative water
sources and evaluate the impacts of these alternatives.
Flooding
A U.S. Geological Survey study shows that flash flooding in the 300-square-mile area including Yucca Mountain and the Test Site
could close highways disrupting the transportation of nuclear waste – and could interfere with above-ground repository operations. The
observations made by USGS scientists during storms in 1995 and 1998 showed that the Amargosa River “has the potential to transport
dissolved and particulate matter well beyond the boundary of the (Nevada Test Site) and the Yucca Mountain area during periods of
moderate to severe stream flow,” the report concluded. Contaminated water could travel as far as Death Valley in California, the report
found. The SDEIS does not consider runoff into Fortymile Wash or Topopah Wash, the subjects of the USGS report. The Supplement
should include a storm water flooding analysis of the proposed 200 acre dry storage pad near the North Portal.
Use of the Yucca Mountain site violates Western Shone Treaty
Section 3.1.1 talks about how DOE would obtain “permanent control” of the land surrounding the repository site, yet makes no mention
of how it plans to “own” that area. The area in question (in fact all of Yucca Mountain) is part of the Western Shoshone Nation, who
oppose this project. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires DOE to prove ownership of the lands it plans to use, yet the DOE does
not have ownership, only control
Conflicting comment periods
Citizen Alert is reminded of two years ago when the DOE released its proposed changes to the Site Suitability Guidelines for Yucca
Mountain and the DEIS at about the same time creating an overlap in the comment periods for both. That process complicated the overall
public comment period making it much more difficult for people to engage in the hearings. At Citizen Alert we would have conversations
with members of the public that went something like this:
Public: “I saw a flier for hearings this Tuesday at seven on Yucca Mountain and your telling me that the hearing is on Thursday. Which
is it?”
Citizen Alert “There are two; one is on the Environmental Impact Statement and the other is on the Site Suitability Guidelines”
Public “So, I am to comment twice on Yucca Mountain in one week. Isn’t that just repetitious?
Citizen Alert “No, its not. They cover different issues.”
Public “But, both about Yucca Mountain”
Citizen Alert “Yes, but Site Suitability Guidelines determine whether Yucca Mountain is acceptable for disposing of the nation’s high-level
radioactive waste.”
Public “Isn’t that what an EIS is supposed to determine?”
Citizen Alert “Ultimately, yes, but the guidelines are a criteria for selection that the EIS assumes that the site must meet.
Public “So, your saying that these guidelines are part of the EIS. Why are we commenting separately? Or …
You get the idea.
`The comment periods for these distinct component of the process should have been well separated in time to allow the public, who
usually do not have time to study the procedures in detail, to know why they are commenting and how the particular hearing they are
attending fits into the overall scheme. Now, history is repeating with comment periods for this SDEIS and the Site Recommendation are
concurrent. Citizen Alert would rather see, as requested in our letter to Secretary Richardson dated June 2000, all the hearings around the
EIS completed with the final EIS done and released to the public before the Site Recommendation comment is open.
Inadequate hearing schedule
Yucca Mt. is a national program, and there has been a great deal of national interest already. This Supplemental EIS should be presented
in national public hearings. Hearings should also be held throughout Nevada. They should not just be limited to Amargosa Valley,
Pahrump and Las Vegas Nevada has two major population centers, and many impacted people in rural areas, being no less worthy the urban
areas, have just as much right to take advantage of the poster session, question and answer period as well as express their opinions on
these documents. While the DOE is questionably upholding its legal responsibilities according to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, this is
another example of the DOE failing to uphold it’s moral and ethical responsibility to the public.
Inadequate comment period
Fifty-five days is an unbelievably short allowance for a technical document and again fits into an unrealistic timeline. The DOE has been
studying Yucca Mountain for over ten years, certainly we can spare a little more time for the public to understand the nature and specific
impacts of the changes in the SDEIS.
The selective extension of the comment deadline is an abuse of discretion that favors some interested citizens based on arbitrary and
previously unannounced terms. DOE should consider that citizens may not have requested copies of the Supplement assuming that there
was insufficient remaining time to gain a copy, review it, and prepare comment. Now it is revealed that those who did not receive a copy in
timely manner will be awarded an additional 30 days to comment. Some of the late receivers of the SDEIS are libraries, does this mean all the
citizens who review the SDEIS from the library get the arbitrary extension? Citizen Alert asserts that extending the comment period for all
would be no great burden for the Department of Energy since the Department is extending the deadline for a few, there is obviously no real
deadline. Extending the comment period would go along way toward providing equal and adequate access to the process for all
interested citizens. Ninety days is in Citizen Alert’s opinion a bare minimum. The Department of Energy needs to take into account the time
available in people’s lives today. Even the staff at Citizen Alert is having difficulty in meeting the July 6 cutoff for comment and it is part of
our job. Given that the YMSER is an integral component to complete understanding of the new design the task seems hopeless. Of, course
if the YMSER had been officially part of the comment documentation, then the DOE would have to open public comment for much longer.
Allowed additional time, it would be Citizen Alert’s intention to resubmit our comments presented here, with additions.
Full citizen participation in democratic decisions that affect our lives.
Non-profit, tax deductible. http:/www.igc.org/citizenalert
—
Kalynda Tilges
Nuclear Issues Coordinator
Citizen Alert – Las Vegas
P.O.Box 17173
Las Vegas, NV 89114
702-796-5662
702-796-4886 Fax
lvcitizenalert@earthlink.net
http://www.citizenalert.org
CITIZEN ALERT – “A Voice For The Land And People Of Nevada”